On Merinews
India's belligerent posture of not signing the NPT has earned it a pariah status. But now hollow talk and rhetoric are not enough to satisfy the real players, who can extend civilian nuclear cooperation. The need of the hour is strong leadership...
The success of the ongoing rapid infrastructural development hinges on the availability of sufficient power to generate returns. Unless India kick starts development of nuclear power, which has not succeeded so far, it will land itself in huge debts and face bankruptcy, like in 1991.
On January 15, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wound up his first foreign trip of 2008 – a three-day visit to China – and spoke blandly about the "constructive and productive" visit. He was right to the extent that it was not destructive and counterproductive! The PM said lots of issues were part of his discussion, like the border dispute, regional trade agreement and civil nuclear cooperation - the last being the most important. However, he said he drew a blank in so many words, "I cannot say I have got a firm definite answer, but my own feeling is that the relationship of trust and confidence is now being established…"
The same day, his special envoy Shyam Saran drew an even bigger blank at Perth, Australia. Stephen Smith, the Australian foreign minister categorically conveyed that his government had decided to overturn the one-year-old policy that had reversed its traditional stand. He said the Australia would not supply uranium to India, because the latter was not a signatory of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).
These severe setbacks to the much hyped 'Look East' policy are particularly disheartening as they are directly connected to the ongoing infrastructural development in India. The success of mega projects, inevitably involving huge FDI (foreign direct investment), will hinge critically on availability of sufficient power to generate returns. Vehement protests against indiscriminate acquisition of vast tracts of land or inundation of habitat pose serious constraints to expanding the thermal and hydropower sectors.
The Indian nuclear power sector is currently on standby and the mammoth budgets it has swallowed over 40 years produce returns only on paper. Its power projects are appalling simply because the DAE (department of atomic energy) has not been able to master the basic technology, leave alone achieving breakthroughs or advanced practices. Exploding a crude explosive device in 1974, despite sovereign commitments not to do so, using fuel diverted from atomic reactors, had driven off technology suppliers. The NPT, finalised in 1968, committed nuclear powers to capping and eliminating their nukes and prohibited non-nuclear ones from acquiring weapons. The country's belligerent posture of not signing the treaty earned it a pariah status. India is now furiously trying to win back international nuclear cooperation for itself.
However, an attempt at leveraging improved relations with the US to get the boycott from the 45-nation NSG (Nuclear Suppliers' Group) lifted and earn the approval of UN watchdog IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) has so far not been successful. Entrenched beneficiaries of colossal funds siphoned off from the programme – politicians of various shades, dysfunctional PSU (Public Sector Unit) employees and obsolete 'strategic affairs' bureaucrats living in a time warp, with the cold war mindset – have all combined to offer a formidable challenge to the process.
Australia possesses 40 per cent of world's known uranium resources and sells the material to over 30 countries under strict safeguards. Like Japan, Canada and Germany, which manufacture and export the major share of nuclear equipment. Australia is extremely sensitive about materials and expertise not going into producing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). When erstwhile PM John Howard of the Liberal Party made a deal with India to sell uranium in 2007, reversing Australia's long-standing policy of not selling to countries outside the NPT, he had argued that it would bring India into the nuclear mainstream and restrict its fossil fuel emissions. The Labour Party headed by Kevin Rudd that swept to power in November 2007, did not buy this argument. With the Indian government proving to be spineless in dealing with vested interests, he overturned the policy of selling uranium to India.
During discussions at Perth, Saran tried to convince Smith that there has been no proliferation of nuclear expertise or materials from India to third parties, despite its non-membership of NPT. Smith commented, "That was the view put to me by the Indian government and I responded in what I think is best described as our traditional response and our traditional approach." Both claimed that the talks were "held in a friendly and candid environment." In actuality, they only "discussed on bilateral trade and the recent cricket dispute between the two nations" according to the minister!
The Beijing parleys were not much different. China is an important and influential member of the NSG and can virtually veto any decision that does not conform to its strict non-proliferation policies. All that the Indian Prime Minister got from the Chinese leadership was an assurance to consider India's suggestion of holding dialogue between chiefs of atomic energy agencies of the two countries. The invitation extended to the Chinese Atomic Energy chief to visit India was accepted but no firm schedule was committed.
Manmohan Singh was specifically asked whether China would support India's case in the NSG for fuel supplies under Indo-US deal. He replied, "I cannot say I have got a firm definite answer. When the issue comes up before relevant agencies, I do not think China will be an obstacle." There doesn't seem to be any rationale why he is so optimistic.
The PM conceded, "We have requested China to support us when this matter goes before the board of governors of the IAEA and the NSG and the answer I got from both the leaders was that they support civil nuclear cooperation with India consistent with their non-proliferation obligations."
There is no sense in expecting that hollow talk and rhetoric can satisfy the real players, who can extend civilian nuclear cooperation. It must also be noted that China has been made responsible to bring rogue North Korea around on the issue of nukes and may not hesitate to don that role versus India also.
Tragically, at a time when the need is for strong leadership, there is none in sight to replace the pathetically weak dispensation at New Delhi. As long as the leadership wants to mollify ignorant or crooked hawks, particularly the anti-prosperity comrades in the country, rather than dealing with them decisively, there is no way the country can have inexpensive nuclear energy to power its upcoming projects.
0 comments:
Post a Comment